As political campaigns look for new ways to reach voters and earn their support, some traditions hold true. Campaign mailers once again flourished in Clark County, specifically relating to candidates in the 3rd Congressional District race.
A few pieces of literature were sent before the primary, but many likely noticed their mailboxes filling with campaign materials in the weeks before the Nov. 6 election. Six mailers alone went out in the days preceding the election.
Along with digital advertising, print materials represent a large chunk of campaign spending.
Are these mailers even effective?
If you ask Travis Ridout, professor of government and public policy with Washington State University, the answer is not really.
Ridout said there’s not a lot of solid research into the impact of campaign mailers — despite their popularity. But he suspects they have an impact, albeit a small one.
“One reason they may be useful is that they can be targeted to specific types of voters, e.g., you can send a message about child care to a mother of young children, and you can ignore voters whom you presume are going to support the other candidate,” Ridout said. “So that makes mailers particularly efficient. They can also help to build name recognition for a candidate — and remind voters when ballots are due.”
But can mailers influence a voter to vote for a specific candidate?
A 2017 study conducted by two political scientists in California found mailers, and outreach in general by candidates and volunteers, had no “measurable change in voting incomes,” as reported by The Atlantic.
The impact of mailers in the 3rd Congressional District is certainly unknown, but with the final campaign finance filing submitted this week, the total cost can be tabulated.
Cost
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, spent $82,354 this election on mailers, mailing lists and postage. Democrat Carolyn Long spent $172,019, the bulk of which — $130,000 — was on a single mailer in July.
Some voters may recall many mailers stating the benefactor was someone other than the candidates. Sending mailers on the candidate’s behalf is relatively common. In the 3rd District, outside spending surpassed what any candidate spent on mailers.
To support Herrera Beutler, the Washington State Republican Party sent four mailers. Each cost around $30,000, for a total price tag of $133,001.
In support of Long, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee paid for five mailers. The average cost for each was around $40,000 and the total reached $199,943.
Content
What may surprise some is the content of the mailers. The bulk are negative. Whereas mailers paid for by Long were in support of her campaign, mailers paid for by the state party were against her opponent. The same is true of mailers sent by Herrera Beutler and the Republican Party.
For example, one against Long reads “Washington families can’t afford Carolyn Long” or “Carolyn Long needs a map to Washington.”
Mailers against Herrera Beutler cite her votes on issues such as abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood. One reads “Herrera Beutler is 100 percent anti-choice.”
Ridout said that’s pretty typical. He said of the research that exists concerning mailers, studies found it’s standard for candidates to stay positive in their materials and outsource “dirty work” to the party or outside groups.
“This allows them to deny some responsibility for the negativity and avoid potential backlash from the news media or voters,” he said. “There is also some research that suggests that messages from noncandidate sponsors are more effective than messages from candidate sponsors.”
Often, voters don’t take the time to read the fine print detailing who paid for the mailer, so many may not know if the negative message is coming from the candidate or an outside party.
Positive messaging from the candidate plays another role, at least when it comes to the incumbent. Ridout said incumbents keep messaging positive and about themselves to avoid giving their opponents name recognition.
After the primary, campaign materials for Herrera Beutler shifted, and called out Long’s residency.
Long had moved to Washington before filing as a candidate. Her recent move became one of Herrera Beutler’s negative talking points in the election.
Ridout said if an incumbent expects their opponent to have the resources to increase their name recognition, “they might go negative against that opponent early, trying to define the opponent in a negative way before that candidate can define himself or herself.”
Long out raised Herrera Beutler by nearly $1 million by the time the election concluded.
